Weekly Box Office and Film Discussion Thread

[Drtooth]

I really wish people would stop overreacting to the film doing badly. Sure, it's a weak opening for a Summer Film (it would already be called a hit if it was November), but it's also a TV show remake. No matter how well you get a TV show remake, they're mostly failures no matter what (except for Get Smart and the first Brady Bunch film). What I don't get is why they didn't just say forget it when The Green Hornet flopped. That should have been a big sign that this wasn't going to be a good idea. Not only a TV show remake, but a TV show remake that no one under the age of 50 knows or cares about. If it wasn't for parodies and references, most of us would never have heard of it.

 

[jvcarroll]

I really wish people would stop overreacting to the film doing badly. Sure, it's a weak opening for a Summer Film (it would already be called a hit if it was November), but it's also a TV show remake. No matter how well you get a TV show remake, they're mostly failures no matter what (except for Get Smart and the first Brady Bunch film). What I don't get is why they didn't just say forget it when The Green Hornet flopped. That should have been a big sign that this wasn't going to be a good idea. Not only a TV show remake, but a TV show remake that no one under the age of 50 knows or cares about. If it wasn't for parodies and references, most of us would never have heard of it.

I generally want things to succeed and that goes for Lone Ranger too. Disney wanted a franchise like Pirates of the Caribbean. Who knew that would have taken off like it did? I don't think the it will be a John Carter level disappointment, but the lackluster performance is important. There is a lot of money riding on its success.

Notorious Muppet critic Jim Hill recently claimed that Disney would ignore the Muppets franchise in favor of big-budgeted pictures for Marvel, Star Wars and other blockbuster fare. I disagree. Low cost, high yield projects look sexy on a spreadsheet. A modest Muppet win can soften the box office blow of more expensive fare. This recent setback highlights that need for diversification even more. Not everything is going to work out like The Avengers. Kermit and company can and will help a little bit. And no matter how their projects fare, people like the Muppets. It's plain good policy to support them as much as possible. They don't eat much!

 

[Drtooth]

Disney's Marvel and Star Wars franchises will always succeed due to the hugeness of both Brands. While Jim is a total D-bag (did Jerry Nelson kick sand in his face at the beach or something?), there is that nugget of truth that they'll promote both those franchises over the Muppets due to their built in fanbases. Though, I won't count chickens before they hatch with Guardians of the Galaxy. But when it comes to these big budget summer franchises that they have to come up with on their own, when has Disney had one that was successful without being animated or POTC? The Sorcerer's Apprentice? Seriously... I didn't even remember that one until I saw a poster at a locally owned video rental store in the "posters we're getting rid of" box. And that doesn't even include their clumsy attempts at live action versions of cartoons. Flops, all (though George of the Jungle was actually quite good).

Too much was working against Lone Ranger. It was released opposite a strong family movie sequel, in July when everyone's suffering blockbuster fatigue, with the worst reviews it could possibly get (I'd need to actually see it to say anything about it)... and I swear this is true... the theater I saw Despicable Me 2, the theater that had the Lone Ranger had the air conditioning broken on a 90+degree day. The couple behind me saw the warning and decided against seeing it. That's at least 14 bucks more they lost. Disney already had a huge hit on its hands with Iron Man 3. Had they put the movie somewhere else, it might have gotten just a little more. Still, a huge blockbuster based on a show that, again, everyone born from the 70's onward only knows as parody? Again... did we forget about Green Hornet?

I don't see why the Muppets wouldn't be a far superior idea to milk, as the last films was barely 50 bucks in budget and made up most of its budget opening week. Lone Ranger didn't get the box office draw that same opening period in July. November is becoming a much slimmer month as far as box office goes (I can only imagine what will happen to Thor 2), and 45 bucks opening second is a triumph there... Summer? No way.

 

[jvcarroll]

Disney's Marvel and Star Wars franchises will always succeed due to the hugeness of both Brands. While Jim is a total D-bag (did Jerry Nelson kick sand in his face at the beach or something?), there is that nugget of truth that they'll promote both those franchises over the Muppets due to their built in fanbases. Though, I won't count chickens before they hatch with Guardians of the Galaxy. But when it comes to these big budget summer franchises that they have to come up with on their own, when has Disney had one that was successful without being animated or POTC? The Sorcerer's Apprentice? Seriously... I didn't even remember that one until I saw a poster at a locally owned video rental store in the "posters we're getting rid of" box. And that doesn't even include their clumsy attempts at live action versions of cartoons. Flops, all (though George of the Jungle was actually quite good).

Too much was working against Lone Ranger. It was released opposite a strong family movie sequel, in July when everyone's suffering blockbuster fatigue, with the worst reviews it could possibly get (I'd need to actually see it to say anything about it)... and I swear this is true... the theater I saw Despicable Me 2, the theater that had the Lone Ranger had the air conditioning broken on a 90+degree day. The couple behind me saw the warning and decided against seeing it. That's at least 14 bucks more they lost. Disney already had a huge hit on its hands with Iron Man 3. Had they put the movie somewhere else, it might have gotten just a little more. Still, a huge blockbuster based on a show that, again, everyone born from the 70's onward only knows as parody? Again... did we forget about Green Hornet?

I don't see why the Muppets wouldn't be a far superior idea to milk, as the last films was barely 50 bucks in budget and made up most of its budget opening week. Lone Ranger didn't get the box office draw that same opening period in July. November is becoming a much slimmer month as far as box office goes (I can only imagine what will happen to Thor 2), and 45 bucks opening second is a triumph there... Summer? No way.

The Green Hornet could have succeeded if not for Seth Rogen. He served as actor, writer and producer. It was his fault. Not the franchise. Terrible film. He made up for that with This is the End. Funny movie!

The Muppets are pretty much a sure thing. Even if the box office take is slim, home video, on demand and digital download can push it to the point of profitability. I'd hate to say it, but that's also why Planes is getting a theatrical release. Disney already knows that tots will own it on video. The big screen experience will only fan sales. It's a safe bet.

The Lone Ranger abandoned its western roots to become a big, bloated adventure film. Westerns don't need to cost that much! Like John Carter, it was given twice the budget it needed. Disney saw this coming and tried to cut costs. They should have turned the project over to a different team capable of letting the content, not just the effects, be the driving force.

Before the Avengers, Joss Whedon could do anything no matter what the budget. He still can. That's why his big bloated Avengers budget was well-deserved. He'd earned it. And he's not the only director capable of such a feat. I think Hollywood needs to bench some of the Bruckhiemers in favor of good storytellers who are less dependent on money.

That's the real issue. Not that the Lone Ranger is a film with limited appeal. The trailers indicate that it's a film with no discernible, compelling story. I'll see it in the theaters. It will get my money. I just think this film could have been a success if it existed within its means.

 

[KremlingWhatnot]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/captain-planet-planeteers-movie-works-576490
A CAPTAIN PLANET MOVIE, REALLY, FROG, WHY,
WE CAN'T THAT SECOND HEY ARNOLD MOVIE, YET WE CAN GET CAPTAIN PLANET, THE CHEESEST SHOW OUT OF ALL THE 90s SHOWS TO BEGIN WITH, UGH, SORRY, I'VE RECENTLY JUST STARTED HATING CAPTAIN PLANET FOR THAT REASON. In other words, Hollywood's officially out of ideas.

 

[Drtooth]

That's the real issue. Not that the Lone Ranger is a film with limited appeal. The trailers indicate that it's a film with no discernible, compelling story. I'll see it in the theaters. It will get my money. I just think this film could have been a success if it existed within its means.

Transformers have never had a discernible, compelling plot and made a lot of people very angry. And they made huge wads of money, and continue to do so. There's clearly no nostalgia goggles for it, because said goggles make fans hate the films all the more. There's clearly something more to Lone Ranger's ill appeal than that. As for trailers, they always suck and they've gotten to the point where they make almost every film look worse than it is. All I can tell is bad word of mouth from curmudgeonly movie critics ("WAAAH! Why can't we have more movies like Darjeeling Unlimited that no one in the freaking world would want to watch?")

As far as the link I posted, this just had me laughing at one of the comments. Translated from sarcasm, the complaint is that Johnny Depp's portrayal of a Native American isn't culturally sensitive in a remake of a series that was far from racially sensitive, even in its day. There might be a grain of truth to that when Depp said he was part Native American, which somehow annoys white people who feel that's completely insensitive.

But I totally agree. We can have strong stories with big budgets as long as the story part comes first. Though, quite a few movies have weak stories and huge budgets and make money for some reason.

Still, they're acting like this is the big star derailing Johnny Depp role. He can't help it if he signed onto TV show remakes (and I'm guessing Lone Ranger won't be half as hard to watch as Dark Shadows). Sadly, the remake of his show was a sleeper hit.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/captain-planet-planeteers-movie-works-576490
A CAPTAIN PLANET MOVIE, REALLY, FROG, WHY,
WE CAN'T THAT SECOND HEY ARNOLD MOVIE, YET WE CAN GET CAPTAIN PLANET, THE CHEESEST SHOW OUT OF ALL THE 90s SHOWS TO BEGIN WITH, UGH, SORRY, I'VE RECENTLY JUST STARTED HATING CAPTAIN PLANET FOR THAT REASON. In other words, Hollywood's officially out of ideas.

Ah, Captain Planet. The series that launched thousands of young Neo-Cons, no thanks to the Narm and Ted Turner's craziness. CP is now popular for being watched ironically, especially by right wing hipsters. Even liberals hate it. The show should totally be completely buried and forgotten.

Meanwhile the good environmental show, Toxic Crusaders didn't have a movie because New Line screwed Troma really, really hard. Now I hear that there's going to be a big budget Hollywood studio remake of Toxic Avenger... I wonder how Lloyd Kaufman let that happen. He really hates the big studios. At least when I went to his seminar.

 

[Drtooth]

I don't want this to be a thread debating this putz, but in the words of Dr. Killemoff's right hand man, Psycho...

I told ya so.

Grab the umbrellas, the crapstorm is about to begin. (While I do not want any responses or debates on this, I love how a batsnot insane writer is pleading for tolerance of intolerance after saying that the government should be overthrown if Gay Marriage was legalized. Seriously... what a putz. What an all Yiddish and Hebrew euphemism for male parts).

 

[jvcarroll]

I don't want this to be a thread debating this putz, but in the words of Dr. Killemoff's right hand man, Psycho...

I told ya so.

Grab the umbrellas, the crapstorm is about to begin. (While I do not want any responses or debates on this, I love how a batsnot insane writer is pleading for tolerance of intolerance after saying that the government should be overthrown if Gay Marriage was legalized. Seriously... what a putz. What an all Yiddish and Hebrew euphemism for male parts).

Ender's Game Boycott:

At what point do we separate art from the artist? There are plenty of entertainers who have done some shady things. But those are usually personal transgressions that have no impact on the public. Card helms an organization with the singular intent to prevent the advancement of equal rights for LGBT people. He’s said some needlessly ugly things about us too. The truth is one can support traditional marriage and marriage equality. Those two things don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Do I think his role in social issues is now "moot" that the Supreme Court has ruled against his prejudice? No, I don't. I'm tired of the double speak from people like him - that somehow not tolerating his intolerance is somehow intolerance. It's not. That's a child's game. Something Card knows a lot about. And I don't for a second think that this issue is over with his organization. He has vowed to obstruct every attempt to implement the court's ruling. It’s funny how he left that part out in his recent sound-bite.

Everyone, including Orson Scott Card, David Duke and the Chick-fil-A guy, is entitled to an opinion and to voice that opinion too. No one is disputing that. I don't think anyone should be censored. However, we all have the freedom to respond to others' free speech. I believe that it's a big country and an even bigger world. There's room for us all and it's unnecessary to force our neighbors to live our personal values. I feel the same way about religious freedom too, but that's a separate topic.

People like Card pretend that social issues, such as marriage equality, threaten to take that away from him. That is nonsense. An intellectually dishonest diversion. Does the mere existence of a "nontraditional" family down the street encroach on anyone else's religious freedom? Of course not. Keep an eye out for slippery slope arguments, because they are often used once a person has already lost the higher ground.

The advertisers are downplaying Card's role in the film, but he wrote Ender’s Game and serves as a producer. He also serves on the board of NOM which is little more than a modern day Klan trying to inflict their myopic ideas of "social purity" on the public. It's a shame that anyone would still support such people in the 21st century. That’s the point where I draw the line. I'm skipping this picture. I hope others will too.

Sorry for the soapbox here, but it was necessary. I usually separate art from artist. People like Mel Gibson, Robert Downey Jr., Lindsay Lohan and others have spotty pasts, but those people were (or are) troubled. Their behavior, however abhorrent, was (or is) primarily damaging them. These are private matters that are really none of our business. I don't carry such silly grudges. This is a different matter entirely. If David Duke had produced a film, I'd boycott that too. That’s the point I’m making here. Card has a right to his personal prejudice. Nobody should try to silence that. We really shouldn't support it either. /soapbox

 

[Drtooth]

Do I think his role in social issues is now "moot" that the Supreme Court has ruled against his prejudice? No, I don't. I'm tired of the double speak from people like him - that somehow not tolerating his intolerance is somehow intolerance. It's not. That's a child's game. Something Card knows a lot about. And I don't for a second think that this issue is over with his organization. He has vowed to obstruct every attempt to implement the court's ruling. It’s funny how he left that part out in his recent sound-bite.

Small rant about that:

The whole Intolerant of Intolerance paradox is indeed a school yard bully game that twists all reason and rationality. It's the old rhetorical question, "is it wrong to exclude those who want to exclude you?" which of course leads to the 2 choices of being a hypocrite or being a doormat. The bigot always wins that game since he holds both options. It's a great way to pretend to be the victim when victimizing others. To argue with that illogic is basically like trying to explain the plotline of an Andy Warhol movie. There's no point because it's not supposed to make any sense. It's just a nice little safety for them to cower behind.

Thoughts on Orson:

I'm going to basically go out on a limb and just write him off as a freaking kook. A dangerously minded kook, but a kook no less. As I said before, authors kinda turn into various kinds of crazy. They commit suicide, they turn into recluses that don't want anyone to turn the books into movies, they get HUGE boosts of ego in some cases... and then there are the writers who start off with a small level of political bias which doesn't show up at all in the initial work, but gradually manages to seep in. Then said presence of political bias gets bigger and bigger and bigger until it's obvious the writer is so incredibly out of touch with reality, that everything becomes a fantastic, paranoid, delusional fantasy against his beliefs. The line between those beliefs and the fantasy he writes have now merged into extremist views that are all too real.

So, it's my belief he may have started out a little right sided, and then came out a far extremist right that actually thinks that everyone in the universe is out to get him because they don't believe in views that radical. And if the views of others aren't as radical as his, even if they're on his same side, they're just as bad as far left.

In short... he's a poisonous looney tune.

 

[Drtooth]

But to leave the Orson Scott Cuckoo debate in the dust, I found This Article about the reasons Lone Ranger Flopped. And, let's face it, every single point it made is true. But it took me a little while to realize the thing about Westerns. Johnny Depp and Gore Verbinsky already had a hit Western. Rango. Now, it sucks there can never be a Rango 2 (don't see how, unless he gets lost somewhere else and goes on another self delusional, manipulative played out fantasy... and that would be a little predictable and repetitive), but it seems that Gore may have tried to get that feeling into this movie the wrong way.

Also, I like the point about how Johnny Depp is playing second banana to someone no one has ever heard of that hasn't held a movie together yet. Maybe Johnny should have played the Masked Man, and let some Native American actor do a P.C. version of Tonto.